Reactions to Aurora movie theater shooting (18 letters)

My daughter and son-in-law live in Aurora, so one can imagine my fear when I woke up to the news of the Century 16 killings. I have only the highest of praise for the first responders and how calmly my calls to the local hospitals were handled.

Everyone I spoke to from Aurora Police to hospital personnel were very helpful. Their professionalism helped me avoid panic.

Most fortunately, my kids had chosen to see the new Batman film later in the week, so they are alive and well. My heart hurts for those who lost their kids in this heinous happening.

Pamela A. Olcott, Gainesville, Fla.

Waking this morning in the UK to reports on the BBC News of the tragedy in Aurora, I felt moved to write, but sitting here now, all I can offer are my prayers for the victims and families of that terrible act as well as those in the emergency and medical services involved.

Sean Kilkenny, County Durham, United Kingdom

This nation has gone out of control with its gun culture. It’s time this barbarism ends. We have to get tough, real tough, like outlaw guns completely. An estimated 240 million are registered in this country. Are you nuts?! This latest insanity in Aurora is a tragedy on a monumental scale, and still we don’t show enough outrage against guns. When will this end? We live in a state where the University of Colorado allows students to carry concealed weapons. Are you kidding me?

Sure, law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. But when you make guns available to them, you make them available to the criminals and the psychotics of our society.

Gun owners — sorry, find another way to amuse yourselves. Find another hobby.

Walt Bonora, Lakewood

Once again a senseless, stupid, immoral tragedy has played out with a gun. Soon, the clamoring voices of gun control will sound off. We will attack the mechanism, not the problem, once again.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Those words were written by John Adams, the second president of the United States and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment).

Unfortunately, the people whose clamorous voices we will hear are many of the same people who have sought to remove the mere mention of God from our public institutions, and who seek to address human brokenness with more and more law.

D.W. Griffiths, Denver

There will be a predictable howl for more gun control legislation by progressives. They will assert, “Something must be done about the gun violence!” But their tired solution will only be to deprive law-abiding citizens of more of their constitutional rights.

Some facts:

• The shooter, by his actions, broke dozens of existing federal, state and local gun laws already on the books, not one of which saved a single life.

• Only law-abiding citizens observe gun laws, anyway.

• Any further gun legislation will fail to address the misbehavior of those who choose to ignore the law.

The reality is, had a conceal-carry permit holder been present to return fire, the death toll might have been much lower.

Dave Petteys, Roxborough Park

It’s abundantly clear that American citizens need greater protection from those who bring guns into public places. This can be done by installing metal detectors like the ones used in airports in public places — schools, theaters, churches, hospitals, office buildings, apartment complexes, grocery stores and shopping malls. Literally every place Americans work and live. This is the country the NRA has wrought, a society in which we are increasingly fearful of one another.

Michael Durall, Denver

There will be comparisons to Columbine — as there should be. When it comes down to it, what have we done as a society to prevent an individual from taking the lives of so many people so easily? Nothing. We’ve done nothing significant over the last 13 years to prevent weapons that are designed for killing human beings from being manufactured, sold and readily obtained. Who can watch the news today and say that we’ve learned from Columbine and taken steps to keep it from happening again? No, we get the NRA and gun nuts spewing garbage about personal freedoms and how if only somebody in the theater had been armed, the attacker could have been stopped.

More guns in our society lead to nothing more than deaths of innocents like 2-year-old Ethan Hearty. Want to see something scary? Type “toddler shoots” into Google and look at the results.

Zack Strober, Denver

If there was one person with their legal concealed weapons permit near the assassin, the continuing bloodshed would have been very well terminated.

Using tear gas and being heavily armed, using multiple guns, he attacked a dark, highly crowded movie theater filled with adults, children and even babies.
His methods brought about ultimate chaos and death, as it was almost like target practice.

Kenneth L. Zimmerman, Huntington Beach, Calif.

In light of the theater tragedy, I am reminded we don’t need a president. We need community. And we can begin by reaching out right now.

David Stevenson, Denver

The shooting has been a real tragedy for our community. With all the coverage in the news, many residents in our community have been interviewed and I have been so very impressed with the clarity of their stories, their personal outlook on these events and their general demeanor while being interviewed. In many cases the interviewee came over better than the interviewer. Makes me proud to tell people I live in Denver. Hope we have more personal-interest stories of these people rather than the demented shooter!

Jim Thompson, Denver

On Friday, another senseless act occurred in a theater just up the road in Aurora. The killer, like so many others before him, will now be publicized for weeks, months and perhaps years to come. We’ll see his picture and name emblazoned in headline stories, filling the airwaves and easily accessible on the Internet. There will be scant mention of the victims unless they were already “famous.”

Out of respect for the victims and their families, isn’t it about time that news organizations mention these perps’ names and pictures only once and after that the references are simply “the accused,” “the alleged” or something similar? Why do we give all this publicity to those amongst us who are so antisocial? As time passes, we are hard-pressed to remember a single person whose life was so tragically ended, but we sure do remember the guilty — Tim McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, Klebold and Harris, etc.

Enough! Let’s remember the good, innocent people and relegate the accused to the status of persona non grata.

Tom Rich, Colorado Springs

Once again guns kill innocent people in our community.

In the old West, the towns remained lawless until the sheriffs made everyone check their guns at the city limits.

When will The Denver Post and our congressmen have the courage to fight the NRA?

Bill Belew, Boulder

We woke up this morning to the horrific news of another mass shooting in Colorado. As expected, many are asking, “Why?” May I offer an answer? Our foundations, civil and moral, are being destroyed. They are being destroyed by those who say there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. They are being destroyed by nihilists who would say life has no meaning or purpose and moral values are contrived.

For those who would claim no absolutes and no purpose, I would beg to differ. There are absolutes; there is a right and a wrong. It just depends on whose absolutes you choose to follow. For those who believe life has no purpose, or those who believe a beating heart carried inside of a mother is not truly a life, can you tell me the difference in those hearts and a beating heart sitting in a theater seat? When we as a society devalue any life, why are we surprised when such events occur?

Diane Love, Parker

Once again, we will beat our breasts, and ask “How?” and “Why?” Really? It doesn’t take a genius. A deranged individual has easy access to guns. He walks into a theater showing a shoot-’em-up movie full of gratuitous violence, carrying an assault rifle, a shotgun and two pistols, intent on using them.

Our friends at the NRA will tell us this all could have been prevented or stopped if only the movie-goers had been armed. Oh, goody! We could have had us an old-fashioned, Western-style gunfight right there in cinema No. 9! Just the country in which I want to live. Of course, lost in this argument is the fact that the shooter should not have been allowed to have weapons in the first place.

Joe Felice, Aurora

I am deeply saddened by the unspeakable act of random violence that occurred in Aurora and my prayers and thoughts go out to all of the innocent victims and their families — now all forever intertwined by tragedy.

We, as a society, need to seriously debate the careless ease with which people such as the perpetrator of this heinous crime were able to obtain so many weapons of mass destruction.

We also need to frankly and finally acknowledge that violence portrayed as “fantasy” in the virtual media often does get repeated in reality as some people do have difficulty distinguishing between the two worlds.

Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nev.

As a native Denverite who now lives in Northern California, my heart goes out to the family and friends of the 71 victims in Aurora, as well as the citizens of Aurora at large. I lost my first partner to a self-inflicted gun shot in 1974. I call on President Obama and congress to show leadership and political courage at long last, to pass tough assault weapon legislation. The NRA has held politicians of both parties as political hostages far too long. We can all support the Second Amendment and not personally possess more fire power than Washington’s entire army did during the Revolutionary War. The Constitution did not anticipate personal weapons of mass destruction.

David S. Westerkamp, San Francisco

Come on, people, the gun didn’t kill people, it was a sick, deranged person that killed those people. There are sick minds in every city, state, country throughout this world. In most countries where there are no guns allowed, a person will just strap explosives to themselves or leave a device under a seat. What would you say if he blew up the entire movie theater? Bombs are far more capable of killing and maiming the masses than a bullet.

No rogue explosives available in Aurora, Colo., USA? Wake up! I moved from Lakewood to the Republic of Panama for good reason and this is one of them. Was there no one there that had a concealed weapon to return his fire?
Sick people will find a way to kill others. Don’t start screeching about the gun, it did as commanded.

Perry McMullin, Gorgona, Panama

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Letter writer Robert Stellar makes a big assumption when he states an armed theatre goer would have stopped the carnage. The shooter was apparently wearing a bullet proof vest, and the scene was chaotic. Someone responding from the audience with answering fire would just as likely kill some other innocent person.

Anonymous

When you are shooting fish in a barrel, it’s even better if the fish are unarmed.

Anonymous

That’s an absurd statement, period.

Anonymous

Nah, look at the statistics. I don’t own a gun. I chose not to. But what most leftist want to do is to chose for everyone else.

Charlie Walsh

An equally absurd statement, Good, and you know it.
Besides which, your original statement is just tacky, given the timing. Have some respect.

thor

Most of the comments on here lack respect, so lighten up.

Anonymous

CW, this entire thread is tacky given the timing, but it hasn’t stopped many people from condemning each other.

jimmyB

When did murders, like this, become a “leftist/rightist” thing?

Anonymous

.. . WHEN your right wing buddies decided to defend the NRA and gun nuts ad nauseam, and stop every minimal gun control or safety issue. That’s when!

Brian

The man writes 10 words and you have determined where he stands on every issue. It must be a heavy burden to have such insight with all of the posters on here.

Anonymous

JB, see. TH is showing you that what I said was exactly correct.

Anonymous

Just the reactions to solutions to problems

Anonymous

Read again JB. It is the issue of guns that is the leftist/rightist issue, not murder.

Anonymous

good, I DO own a gun, but not the types most think about (self-defense). I’m not anti-gun, I’m anti-stupidy. So are you, so why do you want to defend all of these NRA policies?

thor

Do you even know what the NRA policies are. Most of their policies are about gun safety. The have a course for children that teaches them to leave a gun that they may find alone, run away and tell an adult. The NRA is, in fact, a very responsible institute that teaches the safe use of guns for recreational use. The NRA is not a militia nor para-military group.

Anonymous

The NRA is about selling guns.

jimmyB

I think I would have worded that a bit different to be not quite so insensitive.
Come to think of it, I wouldn’t have posted ANY statement of the kind, in the first place.
But, that’s just me, good.

Anonymous

peter stole my response, but an armed person is the same size target as an unarmed person, only the armed person is going to waste time pulling his heater, and start blazing away hitting others and the body armor before drawing attention of the shooter (saw this in a movie once! ;o). Even if you have “training” like SansIntelligence.

thor

Bad assumption. When you overstate your position with words like “blazing away” you show more allegiance to your point that Sans does to his.

Anonymous

“overstate?” So a person who is bent on killing as many innocent people as he can is “blazing away” (read accounts), but a person carrying a legal firearm and is “legally, carefully, and meticulously” discharging his weapon to seek a legal and righteous end? Stop nitpicking thor. You’re on the wrong side (again), and defending firearms and gun-toting hero wannabes is not a popular thing right now.

thor

Whether I’m on the right side is a matter of opinion. But your “blazing away” comment is still over stated. You’re the one who sounds like he’s seen too many movies. And I’m not defending anyone. I’m pointing out ridiculous arguments for what they are.

Anonymous

So you are saying if you were in this situation you’d rather be unarmed?

Anonymous

you’re absolutely correct. witnesses said they could not see, so what use would it have been to have another person shooting blindly in the dark?! Idiotic rationalizing..

Anonymous

yes, ever been in a dark movie theater? And what about all the people around you. Even trained police no better than to start blazing a way at a shooter in a crowd. Collateral damage is never acceptable.

So your suggesting that even a trained police officer, military person, or citizen with defensive training wouldn’t have been able to do anything? You comments expose your ignorance of the training and abilities that armed citizens take the responsibility to learn when they decide to carry a firearm for self protection. I suggest you take a personal defense class and learn before you start talking about subjects you clearly have no idea about.

A lot of our troops get wasted by friendly fire, delivered by their highly trained comrades-in-arms. Suppose twenty or thirty vigilantes drew their heat and started blasting. Are you sure you know what you’re talking about?

No, he was suggesting that people no training or experience in dealing with armed attackers and little if any training in using a gun would not have been able to take effective action. Next time, try responding to what the person actually stated. If you are too stupid too understand, ask an adult to help you.

Anonymous

Firearms training for everyone. Works for me. How about mandatory military service like many countries implement.

jimmyB

I suggest you talk to trained police officers, military persons, and citizens with enough defensive training to know when to shoot, and when not to shoot, before you start talking about subjects you clearly have no idea about.

thor

Jimmy, why are you assuming Sans has no idea what he’s talking about. Do you?

Anonymous

I’ll state Sans knows nothing about what he’s talking about, even if he has credentials to that effect.

jimmyB

Yes, thor, I do. I’ve had the training in the military AND civilian law enforcement.

jimmyB

Also, thor, when I took the CCP training course adminsterd by the NRA (which is supposedly the most comprehensive), there was very training on shoot/don’t shoot situations and it was all classroom training at that; althouth, as I understand the requirements for a CCP, shoot/don’t shoot situation training IS NOT required. But, should be.

Anonymous

Sans, you seem to be the one sans intelligence. In a perfect world this kind of training and arming works. Who’s to say someone in the audience wasn’t conceal-carring? Think they’re going to admit it, and face accusations of not doing anything. You’ve watched too many movies, where fiction meets fantasy. Anyone can be surprised and killed even with all the training and firearms in the world. Look how long it took everyone to realize this wasn’t a gag.

Anonymous

on a side note, “sans” do you realize what the term progressive really means outside a label of political thought? It’s about thinking ahead, advancing a society. “favoring or advocating progress.” Now, I realize the conservative movement are traditionally about clinging to the past, expecially a past long replaced with modern thinking. So you’re an anti progress person?

And if there were several armed people in the audience, they are as likely to have shot each other as to have shot the perpetrator.

Han Solo

I totally agree, but a CCW holder CERTAINLY could have been very important if this guy wanted to star roaming the theater from movie room to movie room and pick off people. A CCW holder could stop them from doing such a wide scale assault after they lost the element of surprise and the cover of darkness.

Man

The shooting is a terrible, horrific mass murder. Guns do not kill people. People using guns kill. Banning guns is never the answer. That’ll only stop people who care to follow the law. Condolences to all the victims families and everyone else.

Doug

I see the shooting was so horrific for you to try and score political points.

Anonymous

So guns are designed to kill? They’re just designed for war and hunting and sport shooting? That military grip style 12 gauge shot gun shotting buckshot, used for quail shooting? The military AR-16 wannabe AR-15 semi auto “assault rifle” with 100 round capacity magazine, used for home defense? The body armor, with muliple magazine holders, and combat knife used for recreating? When there are laws preventing these military/people killing purpse firearms are passed – then I’ll start to listen to the “people kill people” argument. But the gun nuts, will not ban or prevent one thing in fear their precious “home defense” firearms are taken from their cold dead hands.

Anonymous

Good Morning America makes a link to the Colorado
shooter James Holmes possibly being a member of the TEA Party. It
seems there is a Jim Holmes in Aurora Colorado who is a member of the TEA
Party. Or the TEA party James Holmes may be one of the 11 James Holmes listed in the
phone book in Aurora Colorado. The left wing media is a disgrace to journalism.

Anonymous

For once, I agree with the conservatives on this.
Some reporter does a web search on a name, and lo and behold, a man with a very similar name is on the Colorado Tea Party website, so the reporter jumps in head first, and ABC has egg all over its face, hands, torso, brain, and other organs.
The reporter never thought to consider that James or Jim Holmes is not an unusual name. The reporter just said “Aha! The shooter’s name is James Holmes. The Tea Party has a Jim Holmes. The Tea Party is responsible!”
You’d think the media would have learned a lesson after the shooting in Arizona, but noooo …

Brian

And you have to wonder….did they try to look for a James Holmes in the occupy movement?

By all accounts he had an assault rifle which have been banned for years. A lot of good that did. There is no answer here people.

He was a sick individual and through out history they find a way to hurt others. It’s a time to remember those who were lost and reflect on our own lives to make sure we are living them to the fullest.

It was not an assault weapon that would have been banned anyway, because it’s NOT an assault weapon.

easywalt

At some point we have to realize that the solution to gun violence is not more guns.

Marcy Fleming

It’s NOT ‘gun’ violence. It’s violence by people misusing guns. Same as with reckless driving, it’s not ‘car violence’ it’s violence by people misusing cars.

USpatriot

Ah yes, the car analogy. Following the same twisted logic, I can assume that guns don’t kill people, gun owners kill people.

Anonymous

No it’s the lead projectile destroying the vital organs of the body.

Doug

I had shivers sent down my spine this morning. A friend’s son and grandson (16 years old) are Batman fans, and live with in a block of that theater. They have done the midnight movies before, and we thought they would have been there. When we talked our friend this morning she said her family had decided theater was “eerie” and would see the movie somewhere else. They are a little bit on shock, but all right.

Doug

I had shivers sent down my spine this morning. A friend’s son and grandson (16 years old) are Batman fans, and live with in a block of that theater. They have done the midnight movies before, and we thought they would have been there. When we talked our friend this morning she said her family had decided theater was “eerie” and would see the movie somewhere else. They are a little bit on shock, but all right.

Important Point

Let me tell you something about the kind of guy who’s first response is “if someone would have been armed, then this all could have been stopped.” They’re the kind of coward who pees themselves if anything as aggressive as a bar fight breaks out, middle aged, overweight, earning below the median income nothings who escape their own mediocre lives with Walter Mitty fantasies where they’re John McClane. These kinds of wimps would have been pushing women and children out of the way to escape had they been in the theater when this went down.

Brian

Wow, thanks for sharing us with us your life.

Saxxon

Haha, so you are saying you pissed your pants when this happened? You see, people like you assume that everyone else reacts as they do to situations. It is a given that any rational person will be scared at the outset. But there is a wide range of response after that, and for most of us it doesn’t require Depends to mitigate it. Some of us after that initial fear & adrenalin still have rational thought, seeing the exits crammed, the guy shooting at anything, plan an attack knowing we are trapped in the situation anyway.

That would be how the passengers on Flight 93 felt on 9/11. They didn’t crap their pants, they did something about it. There are a few real Americans left still, even if you aren’t among them.

jimmyB

“middle aged, overweight, earning below the median income nothings who escape their own mediocre lives with Walter Mitty fantasies where they’re John McClane”
I’d surely like to know where you came up with your massively ignorant generalization of “middle age, overweight” people, but I’d bet there just might be (although I have no proof) a lot more “younguns”, who’ve been playing shoot-em-up games for so long, who beleive they can stand up to anyone with a gun. I’m just wondering if you realize there are a bunches of “middle age overrweight” people who’ve bravely fought in several of our wars, including Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Would you just as ignorantly lump those “middle age over weght” war veterans in with this group of cowards you came up with.
Cowards come in ALL ages and wieght sizes, there, umiportant point.

Sean Kilkenny

I must agree with David Stevenson. Community cohesion can be the only answer to such tragedy. To paraphrase the Norwegian Prime Minister in the aftermath of the massacre there, we must not let such people frighten us from the course we are on, but press on – only more so.

jimmyB

Community cohesion will help, but there will ALWAYS be aberrations, like Holmes.

Alfred

The right question is, how did a man wearing body armor, ballistic helmet, carrying three guns and a tear gas canister made his way into the cinema?
To all those who hate guns: this guy could have simply detonated a massive IED in the theatre like what he planted in his apartment, if he didn’t have access to guns, and the former would be just as effective in taking life if not more.

concerned citizen

I have heard from various stories that the gunman kicked his way in thru the back exit door. Earlier someone stated that we need metal detectors to keep people from bringing guns into the theaters. In this situation the detectors would not have stopped this from happening. When a monster decides to commit such a horrible act there is no stopping them. His apartment is full of bombs, his car was booby-trapped, had it not been a gun it would have been some type of bomb. It is total madness but laws don’t stop these type of monsters.

n

they need to have alarms on doors like they do in grocery stores etc.
he was just mad because he wasn’t wanted at the college as i hear and cannot take criticism and everything bad that happens to him, he may think its everyone elses’s fault.its always easier to not own up to something and blame someone else.

John B.

This shooting is a reminder on why it is important that Americans should be allowed to carry concealed and open carry weapons into more public places. The police and laws dont’t protect you from criminals, you can only rely on yourself to protect yourself and loved ones. An armed public is a strong deterrent for criminals like this one. He picked a movie theatre because of the fact that guns aren’t allowed.

Aitia

time from first emergency call to apprehension: 1.5 minutes. That’s how quickly he did this damage. I highly doubt that in the confusion that someone with a weapon out and the safety off could have lessened the damage

John B.

I can hit a 4 inch target in a simulated tactical situation from 25 yards reliably. I can have my gun unholstered, safety off, and sighted and aimed in a little over a second. You have no right to prevent me from having the chance to defend myself and my family. In a situation like this, if i was allowed to carry inside the theatre, I think if I was sitting in the front were most of the victims were I would have a chance to atleast prevent further damage. That is why I train so much. You cannot rely on the police or gun laws to proetct you, only yourself and your training. That is what the forefathers wanted in the 2nd ammendment.

aitia

I wasn’t denying your “right”; I was rejecting your assessment of the situation. #1 regardless of the reality of a “simulated tactical situation”, you are still aware it is a simulation – reality is different.
#2: consider all of the circumstances: darkened, packed movie theater, audience distracted because the movie has started. Add gas canisters and unexpected gunfire – which adds panicked crowds – and you trying to home in on a shooter dressed in black WITHOUT making audience members around you think you’re another shooter.
#3: regardless of your skill set, that doesn’t mean everyone else who would carry has the same skill set.

AaronS

“I can hit a 4 inch target in a simulated tactical situation from 25 yards reliably.” I am pretty good at nintendo’s duck hunt. I pratice a lot too. Give me a gun and let’s go protect the innocent. Does this superhero cape make my butt look big?

Anonymous

No safety on a glock

Anonymous

um, good for it? How does that change the scenario?

Anonymous

My experienceis that it save about a 1/4 of a second getting on target. You asked.

Anonymous

Actually, the original post was saying the safety was already off … not that someone would still have to take the safety off… but now we’re all just nitpicking here.

Anonymous

I love how confident Steller is that in a darkened, noisy theater, with his/her vision inhibited by tear gas, that “one person with their legal concealed weapons permit… would have” ended the attack. That he doesn’t consider the possibility that a well-intentioned concealed carrier might have missed and shot the wrong person in the chaos.

peaceful

First, the guy doing the shooting also is producing muzzle flashes with his weapon.

That gives you a target, even in less than optimal conditions. Many of us have laser sights on our carry weapons, and that reduces the probability of collateral damage considerably.

While it is possible an innocent person might get shot, it was certain that the shooter would not stop until he ran out of ammo.

As a person who carries legally in my home state, I would take the chance of maybe hitting an innocent who got between me and the shooter over letting the shooter continue to wound and kill innocents unopposed until the shooter ran out of ammo.
I see attempting (at least) to stop them from shooting up the place as a moral imperative, it is a responsibility I embraced when I got the Concealed Weapons Permit, as is the responsibility to be proficient enough with my weapon to not needlessly endanger others in the vicinity.
If I failed to immediately disable the shooter, It is likely that the shooter would expend at least some of their ammunition in my direction, since I would present a threat to their continued rampage. Merely by drawing fire, I can help save lives, even if the shooter is wearing a vest.
(BTW, those rounds still hurt, even inside the vest, they just don’t make holes in the meat.)

There remains the fact that the person shooting up a theater is likely a coward, (look at who they are shooting at–bushwhacking people watching a movie), and they may well bolt and run when someone starts shooting back.

CU Alum

Say you can shoot at a muzzle flash. What happens if there is some other would-be-hero in the room with a concealed weapon. Now you have 3 people with guns, how do you pick out which muzzle flash to shoot at? Do you shoot at both muzzle flashes in a dark, smoky room crowded with panicked people trying to flee? How do bystanders know your intentions? Maybe you’re part of the attack – Columbine did have two shooters. Seriously, it’s all fantasy on your part that you’d be able to be a hero in this situation that 1) you’re not really trained for; 2) you don’t know who’s involved, and 3) you don’t know what they’re armed with. Get over yourself…

peaceful

Well, as it turns out there was only one person producing muzzle flashes in the room, wasn’t there? How’d that work out?

Let’s say you were asleep–otherwise, you would have heard where in the room the shooting started from. Multiple flashes from the same area. The firearm will very likely sound different than what another CCW permit holder is carrying, unless the perp is using an identical pistol. Rifle fire definitely sounds different, and muzzle flashes from a weapon pointed in your direction are different from those pointed away from you. Bystanders aren’t just going to be standing there–they’re going to be scrambling for cover.

And you don’t know my level of training.
As for who is involved, or what specific weapon they have, it makes little difference.
They aren’t Law Enforcement, they are killing people indiscriminately.
It isn’t about being a “hero”, it’s about staying alive and stopping the slaughter. Laws won’t do that, there is already a law against killing people, and that had little effect on the perp in this case..

Apparently you would not do anything other than cower under the seat.

jimmyB

Well, peaceful, I’ve had extensive weapons training in the military, and at FLETC. I’ve fired tens of thousands of rounds under a multitude of scenarios and in different lighting, from bright daylight, to blackend rooms, and I can tell you from experince, shooting at “muzzle flashes” with a handgun, works MABEY, once in a hundred times. I’d suggest you use a shotgun, at close range; HOWEVER, I would dare say, most CCW holders (I have one, BUT I don’t often carry and I would never have thought to carry in a movie theater) don’t carry shotguns under their shirts, or jackets, as they aren’t easily concealed. Now, you might ask: If I HAD a weapon on me at the time, would I return fire? Not if there are people between me and the shooter, nor would I return fire if there are people BEHIND the shooter. THAT’S when training and experience comes in. Why would you?

peaceful

It is one thing to shoot over those prone in front of you. If you can’t take the shot because people are running around in front of you in the line of fire, you can’t. With someone shooting the place up, those standing will be down soon enough and an opportunity will present itself. From accounts, no one was behind the shooter.

That working once in a hundred times means at least a 15% chance of stopping the guy. Or you can huddle and wait while he continues.

jimmyB

Just pointing out how stupid and unrealistic your argument is. But, you keep dreaming of being a hero, if you wish.

jimmyB

Uh…..check your math, peaceful. One lucky shot ouf out of a 100 is 1%, not 15%. Those aren’t such great odds you’re working with, there, chief.

Brian

@7ce1873ba62fc00b0b09e5bf658d5b40:disqus so in a crowded room filled with unarmed civilians you would open up with a shotgun?
I won’t say you are full of chit about your tactical training but it seems to me…you more then likely got your training from playing Doom.

jimmyB

Believe what you wish. But, your buddy peaceful is willing to shoot like it’s a Hollywierd production. If you’re with him, your as much a fool, as he is.

Brian

@7ce1873ba62fc00b0b09e5bf658d5b40:disqus: There was nothing in my statement that either supported or did not support peaceful postings. Read what was said and not what you want it to say. I was questioning the supposed training that was supposedly received and pointing out the stupidity of opening fire in a room full of civilians with a shotgun.

jimmyB

You can question my backround all you wish. It’s no biggie to me, as I know what I did in my lifetime. And, yes, shooting a shotgun in a crowded theater, is just as stupid as an untrained clown, with a CCP, shooting a handgun, in the same situation. Like I said, I wouldn’t be carrying to a movie theater, in the first place. There’s STILL no need to, even after yesterday’s murders.
I was trying (but, obviously not succeeding) to point out to peaceful (knid of a misnomer, considering the subject) how unrealistic, assinine, stupid and pathetic his argument is on taking someone down, in a dark theater, with a movie playing behind the shooter, while people are screaming and running around in front, and behind him, using only a handgun to shoot at “muzzle flashes”?
Perhaps you should be questioning peaceful about HIS prowers with a weapon, before you go after me.

Brian

@7ce1873ba62fc00b0b09e5bf658d5b40:disqus: “That working once in a hundred times means at least a 15% chance of stopping the guy.” This is from peaceful. Now I am not a great mathematician but even I know that a 1 in a hundred chance equals 1 percent unless this is some new math that they teach. And I would rather argue with a noodle then engage peaceful in any type of discussion. And I understand the point you made now. I am always leery of claims made in here.

jimmyB

Agreed. It’s best to take some of these claims with a very large grain of salt.

jimmyB

And, by the way, the ONLY time I’ve fired a weapon “in anger”, was during my wartime experience. I was one of the lucky ones, who didn’t have to fire a weapon “in anger” during my time in “civilian” law enforcement, nor have I used a weapon since I was issued my CCW. In MY OPINION, people who get a CCW and feel they are thereby, an extension of law enforcement, shouldn’t have been given one in the first place. This isn’t Dodge City, or Toombstone of the 1800s, peaceful. Leave the fantasy to those in Hollywierd.

peaceful

It isn’t about being an ‘extension of law enforcement’, nor is it about Dodge City. The point is to eliminate the threat to yourself (and others). No fantasy (nor anger) involved. There is plenty of time to be angry afterward, if you survive, while the local professionals are taking pictures and filling out paperwork.

jimmyB

You’re a fool, living in a fantasy world. But, that’s just me.

jimmyB

If you’ve never been, you don’t know how angry being shot at can make you. I was shot at several times, while in Vietnam, so I have a little experience with understanding the emotions involved. So, yes, anger, fear and even excitment were all part of being shot at. What experience do YOU have?

Anonymous

I remember my M-14 in the Marines had a “flash suppresor” so I tried to research on the interenet how much muzzel flash a typical new age firearm and gun powder produce, and you know what I came up with? Applications and devices to INCREASE muzzle flash so the gun nuts can make their weapons appear just like the movies! It just get’s better!

peaceful

First, if you’re in the room, you are able to determine where the initial shots were fired from. A rifle sounds different from a pistol, the muzzle flash of a weapon pointed at you is different from one pointed away from you. If you had ever been shot at you might know this Who they are and what they are armed with are immaterial–they darned sure aren’t law enforcement shooting up the room at random. Bystanders are likely looking for cracks in the floor to crawl into, not standing up, but if they are standing up, should one wait for the perp to shoot them before responding?
You don’t know my level of training, nor that of many concealed permit holders, who often go beyond what Law Enforcement training requires. Some people take up Karate, this is our martial art.

It isn’t about being a ‘hero’, it’s about keeping ourselves and our loved ones alive. It’s a tremendous responsibility, and apparently one you would not embrace.
Yes, Columbine had two shooters, and also no one with the means of self-defense. That didn’t work out very well, either.

Old Enough

And the Monday morning quarterback strikes again!

jimmyB

Agreed. Some dreamers do dream big, don’t they.

Anonymous

peaceful, not everyone choose to pack a firearm to live out your movie fantasies, or want to be the hero like you. Even if as suggested by some gun nuts that some people in authority, e.g., teachers, should be forced to carry a concealed weapon, you can’t make them use it. You’re living in a fantasy world, where the reality is the plethora of firewarms you ilk has flooded this society with, and I don’t have to quote the firearm death figures compared to other countries. And on a final note. . . where are these stories of a legal (or illegal) gun-carrying citizen stopping a mass killing? That story like so much else. . . is in your fantasy imagination.

Anonymous

From the December 9, 2007 Denver News: ” Two church members were shot to death and three
others were injured after a gunman opened fire outside the New Life
Church in Colorado Springs as Sunday services were wrapping up.The
gunman was shot by a church female security officer and was found dead
when police arrived at the scene, said Colorado Springs Police Chief
Richard Myers.” The “female security officer” was a CHL holder who had volunteered as a security guard.

Anonymous

stop being sensable!!! Gun advocates and the right can’t stand that!

jimmyB

Did you ever think you’d see the day, where you and I were lumped in the same group, th?

thor

You seem to be the one, along w/ jimmy and toohip, who needs to get over himself. You guys are no different than the people who make the argument for a person w/ conceal/carry shooting at the shooter. You can come up with all kinds of scenarios. The fact is that conceal/carry people have helped in many situations like the situation at New Life in CO Springs and in AZ with Gabby Giffords. Also, no conceal/carry person would draw in order to be a hero but to stop the carnage. Please, do get over yourselves.

jimmyB

” The fact is that conceal/carry people have helped in many situations like the situation at New Life in CO Springs and in AZ with Gabby Giffords.” Be more specific, if you can. Show some concrete evedence of what you claim.
“Also, no conceal/carry person would draw in order to be a hero but to stop the carnage.” Have even you READ what peaceful has posted? He seems to believe he could have stood up and neutralized Holmes, before Holmes could have taken a second shot, just by shooting at a “muzzle flash”.

thor

I’m not peaceful. I make my own arguments. You, like me, are determined to defend your point of view at all costs. My point is simple and can be defended by facts. I never mentioned muzzle flashes. I have no idea how a conceal/carry person might carry out his task or if such a person even would. But I’d give their chances of succeeding at stopping or slowing the killer a good one due to the fact that this killer wasn’t trained in the military or by law enforcement.

Anonymous

and a concealed weapon holder would have a better chance of surviving such an encounter than an unarmed person would.

Anonymous

obviously you didn’t read anything. Peaceful never stated anything of the sort.

There was a concealed carry holder at Tucson, though he did not draw his weapon for two reasons, by the time he got there the shooting was over, and he didn’t want to be mistaken for another shooter.

From the Denver News, December 9, 2007: ” Two church members were shot to death and three
others were injured after a gunman opened fire outside the New Life
Church in Colorado Springs as Sunday services were wrapping up.The
gunman was shot by a church female security officer and was found dead
when police arrived at the scene, said Colorado Springs Police Chief
Richard Myers.” The “female security officer” was a volunteer who held a Concealed weapons permit.

Anonymous

typical nonsensical “what-if” scenario by an ignorant anti-gunner. If one can see that a shooter is standing on the stage of a movie theater, (as evidently, this shooter was doing) in the full light of the movie screen, one would not shoot at anything but the person holding the rifle and shooting it.

Anonymous

With tear-gas blinding you?

peaceful

Tear gas is miserable stuff, but not necessarily blinding. We do not know what quality of irritant was used, or even if it was tear gas, as some accounts have said it was smoke. Obviously, if you can’t see at all, you can’t respond until you can.

Anonymous

peaceful, stop watching movies and reading gun crap. Have you ever experienced tear gas? I have, in the Marine boot camp training. We were marched into a room and the room filled with tear gas. The first reaction was tearing and we were told not to rub our eyes or it would be worse. The first intent of tear gas (hence the name) is to blind you to disable your vision. Stop playing the professional wannabe game. You’re not an expert obviously.

Anonymous

The purpose of exposing marine (and army) boots to tear gas in boot camp is to teach the recruits that they can still function if they are gassed. Any sufficiently determined person can overcome the effects of the most common CS tear gas within seconds.

… and dozens of other nerds dressed in BLACK COSTUMES and MASKS in the same chaos.

Anonymous

oh lord- bolt and run? The guy obviously had a death wish, even with his armor on – that being said I know many people with CWP’s are responsible, but the fact remains, as long as people can buy fully automatic weapons, there WILL be a eventual repeat of this kind of senseless carnage, no matter what..

Anonymous

It was not an automatic weapon. Very rarely is fully automatic weapon used in a crime..

Anonymous

Agreed. And I feel SO much safer knowing this!

Anonymous

First the NRA doe not legislate any more than the Brady organization. The will of the people is what drives legislation. The will of the people is obviously that over reaching gun legislation is unacceptable. That may change in the future, but that is not the people’s will today. That said this is a sad moment for the friends and family of those murdered and wounded by such an evil being, and my prayers are with the victims and those close to them.

Anonymous

So what toohip? There’s plenty of good reasons for allowing the sale of such magazines. And no good reason to ban them. The primary reason is that the ownership of such magazines is protected by the 2nd amendment. second, they are fun to shoot.

Blaming the NRA for anything is pretty good evidence that you are suffering from the mental derangement known as “hoplophobia” an irrational aversion to weapons.

It’s illegal to convert any semi-automatic weapon to fire in a fully-automatic mode, as you well know, toohip. anyone who does so is guilty of a felony offense. Not that that stops them from doing so.

“SPorting Use” and “Civil Use” are not mentioned anywhere in the 2nd amendment toohip. Neither are valid criteria for ownership or banning ownership of any kind of firearm, or any firearm accessory.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the people have the same weapons issued to the standing army of the time, so that the people stand as a final shield to the actions of any tyrannical government.

Anonymous

according to the news reports, the weapon he used was a semiautomatic rifle that just looks like a military weapon. So your contentions are automatically proven to be 100 percent wrong.

Just another blowhard who thinks that he’s some sort of superman who can be a hero without any knowledge or training. Rambo, do you have any idea as to how short a time period you would have had to react and take action?

Anonymous

Yes, most CCW holders know they have between 4 and 8 seconds in which to return fire.

Anonymous

“peaceful” . . . . you’re scary! (and watch too many movies!)

Anonymous

you are the scary one, toohip. You would sentence innocents to die because you are too cowardly to stand up and try to prottect others.

Anonymous

I concede the possibility that a CWP holder *could* have stopped the attack. But Steller is convinced a CWP holder necessarily *would* have stopped the attack, which is unmitigated nonsense.

Anonymous

not necessarily. A couple of .40 caliber, 10 mm, or .357 magnum, or .45 ACP bullets even to a person “armored” with a “bullet-resistant” vest, would put the man down, disabling him for a few seconds, anyway. And then a CCW holder would have a shot at other more vulnerable areas, and could stop the crime in progress.

Anonymous

With 13 dead and 59 wounded, how much worse do you suppose it would have been?

jimmyB

Would YOU like to have a dead person, who YOU shot by “mistake”, on YOUR concience? good? THAT’S how much worse it could get.

Anonymous

first, I wouldn’t draw my weapon unless I was convinced I could take a shot safely, without harming a third party. Second, I’d be very careful to set up my shot so that I would not endanger anyone else. Third, if I had the least doubt that the bullet would continue past the perpetrator and injure someone else, I would be morally and ethically obligated not to shoot.

Anonymous

JB, 71 people were either killed or wounded. Your assumption is that someone shooting at the Holmes would have added to it. My assumption is that s/he would have cut down the number.

Anonymous

good, you’re batting 1.000 on stupid replies. You’re smarter then this, what gives? So you’re a proponent of collateral damage to reach an end?

thor

You and Jimmy are working too hard to prove the unprovable. Your bad assumption is that a conceal/carry person would just fire blindly. Why do you hang your argument on that assumption?

jimmyB

I’m not assuming anything, thor. Why are you assuming I am?

thor

Your own words are what I’m going by. Nothing you’ve written is anything more than speculation. But then, most of the discussion that I’ve read is two sides to one issue concerning the massacre. What about the motivation behind the killers actions. Someone like the killer would have found a way to wreck havoc had there not been access to guns. He might have started a fire or set off a bomb. Where would this conversation lead had he done either?

Anonymous

jimmyb, because that’s what you are stating

Anonymous

Well this is the time for speculation and innuendo so let me throw something out. Maybe the shooter knew the potential of a gun-toting audience member so “why” he wore the body armor, helmet, and used the tear gas and smoke – to protect himself. Since he planned to surrender, he wasn’t taking any chances on getting shot by some hero.

Anonymous

RE: Concealed Carry Permit Holder – NO, another armed person would NOT have prevented this horror. One of the primary items taught to receive a Concealed Permit is NOT endanger others. So you’re saying that another shooter should have started firing at the shooter in the dark – perhaps causing more causalities! Sheesh. This is real life; not a movie where people walk away after a violent scene and drywall stops bullets. Guess what – there are no ‘simple’ solutions to this type of problem.

Saxxon

No actually they well could have. In the chaos, low light and with the shooter’s vision and motion restricted by his attire (mask & gear) they could have gotten close enough to hit at which point their rounds that don’t penetrate, still inflict pain and loss of balance. Get in close and finish him off by shooting him in an unprotected area.

What you don’t understand is that gear is vyer restrictive, police/military use it, train in it for hours to become proficient and act in a pack because their more limited mobility necessitates multiple individuals to cover angles due to more limited vision and turning. This clown wasn’t some experienced special op type, he was a whack job decked out in a bomb suit. He wasn’t even an experienced shooter, his aim was likely very poor, just that he had a target rich environment (hard to miss firing into a crowd). He was in there unopposed for many MINUTES shooting at scared unarmed people. Its actually surprising that once the situation unfolded some people didn’t just rush him and take him down, as has happened in other places. They literally had nothing to lose considering they couldn’t all get out the exits in time.

Put an armed citizen with some common sense and shooting practice in among those few hundred people and the outcome would have been much different.

Anonymous

Outspoken, according to testimony from eyewitnesses, the shooter was shooting from the stage in front of the screen. Even in a darkened theater, there’s enough light coming from most movie screens during a film that anyone standing on the stage is silhouetted (outlined) by that light. A CCW holder, or person exercising his/her right to carry a firearm despite “gun free zone laws”, who could see this shooter would be able to see that no one was with him, and that there was no one behind him who could be affected by a CCW holder’s bullets. They’d have a decent line of sight, as long as no other civilians stopped directly in front of them. Most CCW holders who have qualified with their weapon of choice should be able to put two or more bullets in the center of mass of a man-sized target at up to 20 yards.

Forrest

This is eerily VERY similar to the movie “Rampage”. I suspect it was a great influence on Holmes’ plans.

John Q. Public

I’m not sure what the answer is, but it’s time to start the dialogue about updating gun laws. I’m positive our founding fathers would not have included that provision in The Bill of Rights had they been able to foresee the possibility of incidents like this one. The 2nd amendment, as is stands, is woefully outdated and obsolete.

Anonymous

I positive they would have included the Second Amendment. Read some history. The American experiment was unique in declaring the legitimacy of government came from the consent of the government. Repressive government was common and one feature of repressive government was to ban weapons to the common people so only the crown had armed forces.

Anonymous

They could predict it and they passed it anyway for a greater reason. Mass killing happened the too.

Anonymous

Wrong, John Q. Public. They would defend it even more. The concept of having an unarmed or disarmed citizenry was anathema to them. They believed that was the one sure way toward enslavement.
Read George Mason–“To disarm the people is the best way to enslave them.”
George Washington:–“A free people ought to be armed.”
Washington, again: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
Thomas Jefferson–“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Jefferson, again–“The cConstitution of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Richard Henry Lee–“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, to use them.”
Justice William Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison): The second amendment is the palladium [shield] behind which all the other rights shelter.”

With a president (Obama) and Attorney General (Holder) who are actively working to ban the private ownership of firearms, the 2nd amendment is needed more than ever.

Kate

After years of living and traveling abroad in developing countries my first reaction so such high violence in my home state was confusion. How can I feel so safe walking down the poverty stricken streets of places such as Manila, Philippines but now I am afraid to walk into a movie theater in the US? Why do these mass shootings keep happening here in the US, where we have laws and regulations to keep people safe?
I believe the answer lies in the state of our culture. We are not a community any more. We don’t know our neighbors, we don’t talk to our co-workers, we have isolated ourselves from our own countrymen and women. In all parts of the world people don’t shoot strangers becuase they know each other and support each other. If the family, neighbors, and classmates of this shooter took the time to get know him they could have seen areas of concern and stopped him before his drastic measures. We need to stop isolating people that look like mass murders and reopen our doors, sit on our front porches and talk to our neighbors and show that we care if we are ever going to see an end to these shooting sprees.

Wow…your pretty oblivious to the world around you. If you walked around Manila feeling safe, you were blissfully ignorant of the dangers that were within feet of you. Violence happen everywhere in the world at a fairly consistent per-capita rate. It has to do with good people and bad people, not guns, culture, or laws. Bad people ignore the law. Bad people do bad things regardless of how well you know them (BTW: most violent crime happens between people who know each other, it’s fairly rare for strangers to rape/murder/kill other strangers. check the FBI crime statistics) How safe you “feel” is a reflection of your limited view of your surroundings, and has nothing to do with the reality of your environment.

Anonymous

For those saying “Gee, if only a patriotic citizen carrying concealed had been in that theater, the shooter would have been dead in no time.”
I beg to differ.
This Batman movie was eagerly anticipated by the fans of the genre. Therefore, the theater probably was packed, and held maybe hundreds of people. Statistically speaking, there is a good chance a permit holder was in the theater and was carrying.
So, …
You are in the theater. You’ve bought popcorn and a drink. You’ve sat through the previews. The movie is finally underway. You have no thoughts on your mind besides enjoying the final act of this trilogy.
When suddenly, you hear popping noises. At first, you think it’s eerily realistic sound effects. Then, people start screaming, and you realize the shooting is real, …
And you’re supposed to calmly asses the situation, locate the shooter, grab your firearm, and start accurately firing?
I don’t think so.
I don’t like concealed carry laws, but I can see a plausible argument where you are walking down a street at night and some thug confronts you or a passer-by. Or a shopowner who gets held up.
But to think a person carrying concealed could have stopped this is totally unrealistic.

Precisely, if the situation warrants and you have a shot. Apparently someone managed to dig out a phone and call police, after they had assessed the situation, found their phone, punched in 911…
So people can perform under stress. Well, some people, anyway.

BTW, if you are approached by someone on a dark street–or even a well lit parking lot, you go through the same threat assessment process to determine if the person is a threat, if they are alone or working as part of a team, etc. They might be looking for a light or directions, they might want to stab you, take your car and rape your wife. Armed or not, you do it, or you should.

USpatriot

What a tough guy “Peaceful” is. We’d all be safer with him in charge. He lives in the same distorted reality as Holmes. He’s only minutes away from blaming the President.

peaceful

I’m not a tough guy. I just try to keep my stuff together when things get sticky. I pay attention. That isn’t distorted reality, that is reality. Try it some time.

Anonymous

I think he’s well past that in his imaginary world. I’m sure he’s got that covered (comes with the territory, right?!).

Anonymous

peaceful is just stating the truth. And it sounds like he lives in a real world, not some namby-pamby mythological world where we can depend on the police to protect us.

jimmyB

“But to think a person carrying concealed could have stopped this is totally unrealistic.”
And, assinine.

Anonymous

insults like yours negate any possible point you think you are making, jimmy.
Any person carrying concealed could have stopped this carnage. But, like most people, they were law-abiding citizens, the only kind of people likely to be stopped by the asinine “gun free zone” laws that prohibit ONLY law-abiding citzens from carrying.

Saxxon

The theatre prohibits CCWs – any guns at all. The people obeyed the law, they died.

just stating the truth, toohip. Not just the theater. State law and probably even town/city laws prohibited ONLY law-abiding citizens from having firearms in the theater. Once this shooter made up his mind he was going to kill as many people as he could, he was not going to be deterred by any lesser laws.

Anonymous

You are guessing what the outcome would be, is no different than the poster saying he would stop. How could either of you know? It is undeniable the odds go up with the lethality of the defensive weapon. Starting with fists and going up to same force the odds get better.

Anonymous

peter, you’re playing the “what if” fame like peaceful, but it’s so much more rational and realistic. But you’re forgetting the primary fundamental human desire of self preservation, and that of your loved ones. You’re going to hunker down to protect you and your own, and get the hell out of Dodge! Only in peaceful’s mind are you going to cooly going to pull your piece, locate the muzzel flashes in the dark theater, and precisely fire around the body armor for that trained “head shot.”

Anonymous

toohip, obviously it’s been awhile since you’ve been to a movie theater. Once the preview trailers, ads and the movie itself starts, there’s a pretty good source of light available to everyone. The screen itself. THere’s certainly enough light reflecting from the screen to outline someone standing on the stage with a rifle. So all a CCW holder would have to to is line up his sights on that silhouette and start firing. Center of mass.

Anonymous

according to several published reports, movie theaters, like malls in general, and school buildings were declared to be “gun free zones” several years ago by the Colorado legislature and/or local town councils. That meant no law-abiding citizens could carry their weapons legally in the theater. Only a criminal could carry a weapon, and do his shooting, for he didn’t give a rat’s behind about any such prohibition of possession of a weapon in such a place, once he’d made up his mind to kill as many people as possible.

Anonymous

“We have to get tough, real tough, like outlaw guns completely.
Gun owners — sorry, find another way to amuse yourselves. Find another hobby.”
========
Here’s a “hobby” I might enjoy: Searching homes, cars, and businesses looking for illegal weapons.
========
It’s “illegal” for prison inmates to have weapons. And do you know how prison guards find weapons? Shakedowns. Searches. Both “Routine” and “Radom.” But ALWAYS Complete.
=========
They look in every nook and crannie…….take off blankets and sheets…..turn over mattresses….inspect every bottle of shampoo and box of candy……EVERYTHING GETS INSPECTED.
=========
EVERYTHING…..on both a routine and radom schedule.
=========
I do NOT want the “Bonoras” of this country violating the RIGHTS of the Law-Abiding to be free and secure from his only answer: German-Style SS Troops in America.
=========
Oh, and please read the Letter ftom Dave Pettys…that actually makes sense….

Anonymous

Including body cavity searches, if necessary.

S

Guns are not the problem. Why do those of you who keep chiming about gun control refuse to consider those obvious question i ask myself every time this kind of thing happens – what has changed about people and society that they can consider doing such haneous and brutal acts? there is more at work that just guns being accessible. They are just the tools they use.
Why dont you consider than constant feeding of violence to their minds from hollywood and the like? or the violent video games these kids are growing up playing for hours and hours? Can’t you put two and two together?
For those of you saying it’s stupid to consider a concealed carry permit holder to confront a gunman – well, are not police armed? so obviously, people with guns neutralize other people with guns! but yes, its an over simplification to suggest a permit holder might have been able to stop the carnage. It really depends on the circumstances. But a police office would have shot at the gunman if he was continuing to fire intot he crowd.

Anonymous

“Why don’t you consider than constant feeding of violence to their minds from hollywood and the like or the violent video games these kids are growing up playing…….”

Because if you consider movies and video games being cause and effect then you have to consider guns as well.

I’ve played first person shooters for years and have never once felt the urge to shoot up a restaurant, school or movie theater full of people. Every time something like this happens people look for someone or something to blame.

How about blaming the psycho moonbat that did the deed?

Anonymous

As a 64 year old FPS gamer myself, I agree. It’s not about the violence, it’s about the putting the tools of carnage in the hands of anyone that wants them, either for personal fantasy, extension of a body part ;o), or the fantasy of stopping a mass killer. While we see more violence on TV in more reality, in many ways the societies of past were more violent. Those of you who are old enough remember wife beatings, child beatings home and school, neighborhood beatings were a part of our past, and not our present day world. It’s called PROGRESS, so is the technology in which we entertain ourselves to make it more realistic. I’m not suggesting this isn’t negative on some fragile minds, but these fragile minds, including Holmes, wouldn’t of been abled to carry out this fantasy or that of peacefuls – if we didn’t provide them with every possible make and type of military weaponry.

jimmyB

th…you and I have GOT to stop agreeing….folks might start talking.

Anonymous

I agree with you up until your last sentence.

We do not provide people with every possible make and type of military weaponry. It’s foolish to even think this.

Anonymous

ONly wish we did. We should. We should all be required to be knowledgeable in the use of such weapons, unless we have a religious or moral objection to weapons in general.

Anonymous

I agree with you up until your last sentence.

We do not provide people with every possible make and type of military weaponry. It’s foolish to even think this.

Anonymous

toohip, the problem is, we have a constitutionally protected right to have the same kinds of firearms used by the military in our possession at all times, so that the people can serve as a final protection against any potentially tyrannical government, be it local, state or federal.

As such we cannot regulate firearms in any meaningful way. We can only make laws that severely punish misuse of such weapons.

After all, it is not the weapons themselves that are at fault. It is the people misusing them.

Anonymous

What are guns designed for? Sport shooting? Food gathering? What’s a military hand-grip 12 gauge shotgun and an AR-15 (AR-16 wannabe) assault rifle designed to be used for? Killing people! A car, most knives, are not designed to kill people. Stop the stupididy. Guns DO kill people, and it takes “people” not just to use them, but put them in the hands of those who choose to kill people. Show us all the stories of legal concealed carry people stopping mass killers? It doesn’t happen. It only happens in your fantasy mind.

Anonymous

so could a concealed carry permit holder (or a person merely exercising his constitutional right to own and carry “arms” where ever he went, despite the unconstitutional “gun free zone” laws that prohibit only law-abiding citizens from carrying in places like movie theaters, malls, and school buildings.

Anonymous

“Alleged mass murderer James Holmes’ plan was absolutely diabolical and sadistic.
Using tear gas and being heavily armed, using multiple guns, he attacked a dark, highly crowded movie theater filled with adults, children and even babies.
His methods brought about ultimate chaos and death, as it was almost like target practice.
=========
When the shooter entered the darkened theater just minutes after the movie started, he probably could not see anyone’s face; he only saw shapes, forms, and blobs at best.
=========
He dehumanized his targets….by making them appear as non-human as possible….by going into a darkened theater where he wouldn’t have to confront the reality that he was shooting at real live human beings that he (1) would recognize as real live human beings (2) might recognize as a friend or acquaintance.
===========
When people lie to themselves; when people do everything to dehumanize living human lives; when people insist they see only shapes, forms, and blobs….people, like this shooter, can do the most revolting things.
============
By the way, if you think this is also a “stick-it” to the abortion ideology….you’re right.

If you are blind to the mentality the Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion, “The Individual Can Decide Who Lives and Who Doesn’t (for whatever reason)” Ideology has brought to this country……think back to the Wild Wild West and the Al Capone days……when the Valentine Day Massacre didn’t involve High Schol or College Kids shooting a whole bunch of innocent people to death.
===========
We have a whole generation (or two) raised on the ideology that “killing other people” might solve your pesonal problems……and we are experiencing mass murders and mass shootings on a scale that were NEVER done like this in the “Wild” West……but that are more associated with what the Nazis and the German SS Troops did.

Anonymous

You should be praying for the victims and their families, not exploiting this tragedy to get on your soap box.

Anonymous

so you hate unborn children so much you won’t accept the truth? Typical liberal position.

Anonymous

Actually as a rule I’m pro-life. If I dated I wouldn’t date a woman who would have an abortion nor would I date one who would have sex outside of wedlock. I also oppose the death penalty and unjust war. Stereotype much? I oppose exploiting any tragedy such as this to try to score political points or as an excuse to grind axes.

Anonymous

so why do you support abortion, as it sounds like you are doing?

There’s a difference between executing someone for a crime he/she has committed, after due process of law is observed, and arbitrarily murdering an innocent child who has committed no crime.

So why do you support gun control laws?

Anonymous

Nonsense. The only Persons in my estimation who have the right to decide when a human being dies are Divine, not mere mortals. Second, it is well known that the State has executed innocent people. You maybe comfortable with that but I’m not both as a matter of faith and as secular law. I wouldn’t mind seeing abortion end but as it stands we don’t have a culture that gives enough of a rip to carry the burden that unwanted children cause for society. Until we as a society care enough abortion will remain. Changing that will require a change of mind in our culture that skews the balance between the individual vis the collective. That can only be done by convincing people that they ALL share a common image and humanity. Til then abortion, war and state executed death will be the rule.

Anonymous

but then you ignore Genesis chapter nine, verse six which states: “Whoso sheds a man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God created He man.”

What makes children “unwanted”, gregory-the fact that some women don’t want to be responsible for the baby they conceive in a moment of passion?

We got along without abortion on demand in this country fo 184 years, gregory. Then all of a sudden, out of thin air, a majority of the court created a new right, with no precedent whatever that a woman could murder her unborn child. Such a crime was always considered to be first degree murder until Roe V. Wade. And as a result, there were comparatively few abortions in this country.

State executions of persons who have been convicted of heinous crimes, beyond any reasonable doubt should continue to occur. No reason to stop them.

Anonymous

I don’t ignore that. I just recall an innocent man who was tried in circumvention of the law and who died unjustly, albeit with glorious consequences for humanity, one of which is a reaffirmation of that Image and a restoration there of. Irresponsible or not those children are unwanted and until you open an orphanage or adopt like crazy what is your point? You as a private citizen have a responsibility to them, one you cannot abrogate and allow the state to assume.

Anonymous

Also I never expressed support for gun control laws. I don’t think they work but neither do a host of laws designed to change the human person via secular law. I have owned guns. I support the right to keep and bear them. I only blame the gunman here not the object he opted to use to kill innocent people. Again stereotype much?

Anonymous

just going by your repeated comments in support of gun control so far on this forum.

Anonymous

Hmmmm….again you need to learn to read. I don’t support gun control laws because, like all prohibitions, they don’t work and open up an illicit, nae, black market.

Anonymous

thanks peter, for saying what we all wanted to say.

Anonymous

You are welcome!

Anonymous

Robts, conclusions are accurate, though.

Those who support abortion, like those who sought to justify slavery, dehumanize the unborn baby to keep themselves from recognizing that that unborn baby is a human being and it has rights.

TJ

The knee-jerk liberal thing is to “ban” everything that seems bad. So, if there is a bad car accident, should we ban all cars? If someone has a bad fall down the stairs, should we ban all staircases? If someone gets a bad paper cut, should we ban all paper? See how silly this gets? Let’s have a well-though-out response, and not just knee-jerk, thoughtless banning.

Anonymous

And conservatives use that same logic to defend the war on drugs.
Anyway, perhaps we all should quit exploiting this tragedy in order to score cheap political points.

Anonymous

so why do you and those like you keep trying to “score cheap political tricks” whenever something like this happens. You blame the inanimate object, first, then you blame the “gun culture”, then you blame “lax gun laws”, then you blame the “gun lobby”, hoping to score political points.

Anonymous

Actually I only blame the gunman. Again, stereotype much?

Anonymous

just going by what you wrote, gregoryR.

Anonymous

“If there was one person with their legal concealed weapons permit near the assassin, the continuing bloodshed would have been very well terminated.”
======
If the reports I heard is correct, the shooter shot all his bullets, then waited calmly in the back parking lot for the police to arrive…..AFTER he shot all his bullets…..and simply waited to turn himself in.
=======
Two scenarios: (1) One person with a CCW permit pulls out his gun and shoots the shooter BEFORE the shooter uses up all his bullets……and Dozens Of Lives Are Saved. (2) 50 people with CCW permits pull out thyeir guns……in a dark theater….and they all start shooting every which way.
=======
Most people would LIKE #1. No one would like #2.
========
But no one should even begin to “like” what really happened: One Armed Crook and 300 Unarmed Victims…..waiting to be picked off.
=======
Like it or not, the police arrived AFTER the shooting apparently stopped. They were no good…..excpt to write the reports.

peaceful

The scenario of fifty people “shooting every which way” ignores that the CCW holders will identify the threat before shooting, and will at least know what part of the room it came from. A ‘free for all’ shootout is highly unlikely (except in the movies).

Anonymous

Robt777, such a scenario–“50 people with CCW permits pull out thyeir [sic] guns…in a dark theater…a nd they all start shooting every which way.”–has never occurred, and in fact is extremely unlikely to occur, because CCW holders are trained to identify who is doing the shooting before beginning to shoot. They are also trained to avoid shooting at all, if possible, and certainly when they do not have a clear line of sight to the assailant, or a solid backstop, free of innocent persons, behind the assailant.

someday

I must have missed all the news reports of concealed carriers stepping up and single-handedly stopping attacks like this one. I’m guessing the left wing media keeps those under wraps. We only hear about Norway, Tucson, Fort Hood, Toronto, Virginia Tech, NIU, Columbine . . .

Because no one in those places was carrying concealed–the perps had an unarmed group to target. No one reports what didn’t happen, and the perps know how to select helpless targets.

someday

You’re saying that people have been using their concealed weapons to stop mass shootings and the media hasn’t reported these events because “nothing happened”? Or maybe it’s that when a deranged man with semi-automatic weapons is determined to kill people, even the “helpless targets” on a military base like Fort Hood are no match. 13 dead and 29 wounded before Hasan was stopped.

peaceful

The personnel at Fort Hood were not armed, and were in an area where troops were not as a rule carrying weapons Furthermore, that was well known on base. Note the shooting didn’t occur at the rifle range.

These perps aren’t shooting up gun club meetings.

All the other places mentioned in the post above were well known to have restrictions or prohibitions in place on firearms, including concealed carry. Tucson because it was a political gathering, if it is like my state. It was no secret that firearms were prohibited to those going by the rules, which the perps aren’t. Unless I am wrong, the theater involved doesn’t want people carrying in the theater, even with a permit..

Bo

Actually if you spoke from the position of knowing the facts, you would know that there was actually a man at the Tucson shootings that in fact had a concealed weapon on his person. Afterwards he said that he did not pull his weapon because 1. the scene was so chaotic he was afraid he might injure/kill someone innocent, 2. he felt that if he drew his weapon he would be mistaken for the perpetrator.

jimmyB

Don’t confuse peacful with facts. That’s not fair.

Anonymous

seems like peaceful was the only one presenting facts, jimmyb.

Anonymous

according to several news reports I’ve seen, movie theaters are among the “public gathering places” in Colorado that the legislature has declared to be “gun free zones”. Which means that only the law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying weapons in such locations.

Anonymous

Major Nidal, the Fort Hood shooter, was finally stopped by two city police officers or sheriff’s deputies who heard the shooting and came on the base. And were able to stop him. On most military installations, and Ft. Hood was no exception, even the MP’s at the guard shacks are required to keep their ammunition locked up (with only a few people authorized to unlock the ammunition) and unless a soldier is scheduled to fire for record, his issue weapon is locked up in an armory, and the ammunition is locked up in an ammunition bunker. No one is armed unless they are “going to war”.

Anonymous

The reason that we don’t hear about concealed legal carriers stopping crimes like this is, yes, the fact that the leftist controlled news media refuse to print such stories. There was a shooting in a church in colorado within the last few years that was stopped by a CHL holder, a member of the church, who was serving as a part time security guard for that church. A vice principal in Louisiana stopped a shooter without firing a shot several years ago, even after he ran to his truck to get his weapon (more than 1500 feet from the school, and returned to the school building.

Of course Norway, being a foreign country, where there is no constitutionally-protected right to own arms, is another kettle of fish.

Sentwali

The reality is the same all across the country. The least suspected people seem to draw the least amount of attention in situations like this. If this were a person from the middle east, or a person of African American heritage, or a Hispanic male collecting bombs, guns, assault rifles over the amount of time that it took this White male the time to acquire such a large arsenal….some one would have taken notice. Also, if this failed…..how on earth would anyone but a Caucasian man be able to get near a movie theater dressed in riot gear with two rifles, glocks, and ammo without drawing some attention?
A common case of our tax paid law enforcement focusing on individuals who are numerically in the minority as it relates to serious crimes….and refusing to focusing on individuals who commit the majority of serous crime in our country.
Hope we’ve all learned something from this. The 24 yr old college educated European male should recieve at least if not more attention as the 24 year old college drop out Hispanic or African American male when attempting to address crime in our country.
Wake up please.

Cassidy

I agree outspoken1, more bullets in the air = more chance of harm. For all we know there were conceal and carry permit holders in the theater (after all there were off-duty military service members present, some of whom had a permit) and chose not to shoot out of fear of harm. All in all, one can imagine themselves being the dirty harry hero just killing the bad guy and saving the day but it is not that simple. Moreover, if the argument is if a person with a gun was present there would be less casualties, does that mean in that kind of culture we should all be expected to carry guns at all times, be armed to the teeth, and have a hair-trigger temperament so we don’t have to live in fear when going to a movie? I wouldn’t want to live in that world. I’d rather have stricter access to guns for all, including a national gun registry. People can try the cultural blame for now, but if turns out to be the lone act of a deranged individual as in Arizona, or even if not, the blame squarely lies on the act of an individual. One who likely had too free of access to guns. This culture of the way of the gun and justifying it in that “if we all had guns no one would be harmed” needs to end

Cassidy

sorry meant to say “some of whom MAY HAVE had a permit” for all we know.

Anonymous

colorado stated that malls, theaters and other “public gathering places” were “gun free zones” several years ago, cassidy. That means even the CHL holders were barred from legally having their firearms with them. Such laws make it a lot easier for mass killers to commit their crimes, because they know that no one is likely to have any weapons with which they can oppose them, and they further know the cops won’t respond in less than 15 minutes or so.

JR

The second amendment has recently been defended with limits by the
supreme court because they see it as about being your right to defend
yourself. It is not about if your neighbor feels afraid you have a
weapon or if the cops work too difficult a job or do not receive enough
pay for their work. In light of this incident, as a gun rights
supporter, I sincerlely wish he had used pipe bombs or a homemade
chemical weapon. Why do I wish this? He was determined to do this once
he decided to, and there was no way to stop him. I am only sad that he
has done something that some people will use as a reason to change a
unique freedom of the US.

The second amendment is for you, your life, your family and your property. Period.

Anonymous

problem is, the Court’s two most recent decisions on the 2nd amendment, the heller and mcdonald cases, ignore the clear language of the 2nd amendment, and the debates and discussions surrounding its ratification.

George Mason, author of the 2nd amendment, stated: To disarm the people is the most effective way to enslave them.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, and third president, stated: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect the right to defend oneself against a thief or murderer, but to have the whole body of the people stand as the final bulwark or barricade against the actions of a tyrannical central government, or a tyrannical state or local government.

As Senator Hubert Humphrey stated in an article appearing in the Februay 1960 Issue of Guns Magazine: “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote
in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

sally

I grew up in Denver, but I have lived in Los Angeles since 1980. It figures this guy was from California, because Californians are stone crazy. I shake my head every day, living here…Californians have no common sense whatsoever.

Happy Jack

Again a tragedy. My thoughts and prayers to you all up there.
And again the media is so quick to jump on every little rumor and report it as news.
Can we stop and let the police do their job before we start blaming everything and everyone?

Diana & Ken Hernandez

My wife and I were so saddened when we woke up this morning to the bad news. We lost our oldest son in Iraq, so we know the pain the victim’s families are experiencing. God bless.
Diana & Ken Hernandez in New Orleans, LA

Anonymous

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims. May God heal the wounded. May He comfort the families of the wounded and those who have died. For those that have left this world may their memory be eternal.

I think Hollywood might have just gotten blood on its hand and the money it made is now bloody. The violence and the sex in Hollywood production possibly did harm to some weak minds.

Anonymous

And comic books cause juvenile delequency. Your idea had been floated before and has been proven to be false. The likely cause here is mental illness not Hollywood.

Anonymous

Greg, do you really think the amount of violence on TV and the movies doesn’t have the effect of desensitizing people to violence? I agree Holmes is probably mentally ill, but the way he dressed, the way he went about the shooting sounds like something Hollywood would have thought up, doesn’t it?

Anonymous

No I don. This line of thinking has been around since the fifties when it first appeared in a now debunked book called “Seduction of the Innocent”. The author claimed comic books were turning kids into delinquents and that Barman and Robin were turning them gay. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now.
This guy is obviously ill, but also brilliant. He chose this event because he knew he’d blend in because all the people were in costume.

Anonymous

Except there have been other more valid studies presented in various “psychiatric” and “psychology” professional magazines which have supported the idea that constant exposure to gratuitous, pointless violence, and gratuitous pointless sex desensitizes the viewers to both.

Brian

@GregoryR:disqus Hollywood is mental illness…personified

Anonymous

Nonsense. Hollywood isn’t a person.

Anonymous

Right, it’s a bunch of depraved, morally degenerate people who glorify gratuitous sex and pointless violence with every film, TV show or book they create.

Anonymous

the likelihood is that Hollywood exacerbates mental illness by glorifying violence and gratuitous sex.

Anonymous

Nonsense. Got any studies that don’t originate from Focus on the Family to back that? Didn’t think so.

Anonymous

Several articles in professional psychiatry and psychology magazines have bolstered such contentions.

Anonymous

I read many of those and Hollywood isn’t the cause. It may exacerbate a situation but it isn’t and never was the root cause of these types of things. It’s sophistry to try to blame Hollywood, video games, comic books et al. The catch here is until we have more info we don’t know WHAT motivated this kid. Ultimately the blame falls on his lap. Anything else is secondary.

Anonymous

It’s false reasoning to suppose that the constant barrage of gratuitous sex and violence did NOT have an effect on this shooter. and that the desensitization to needless death caused by Roe V. Wade also did not desensitize this and most other mass killers.

Anonymous

Nonsense, again there is no direct coronation only a secondary if that.

Anonymous

no proof that it did not have an effect either.

Anonymous

Yet more nonsense.

johnrpack

It’s too bad the only cause anyone can see is “gun availability.”

How about violent entertainment? How about abandoning traditional religious values? How about an expensive, lousy school system (We’re #23! We’re #23!) that teaches few marketable skills to students with few job prospects and which resorts to psychoactive drugs for problem students? How about teaching our youth to act on whatever sexual impulse gratifies them? How about non-stop electronic (significantly violent) entertainment?

My generation owns a lot more guns than the current teen and college crowd. We also shoot a lot fewer people.

TJ

So many of our young men have become so isolated with their computers, with violent video games and porn. We need to socialize our young men, any way we can. If they are happy and interacting with others, they won’t be home alone, hatching plans like this.

Anonymous

the big problem is the idiotic “gun free zone” laws created by legislatures or town councils. All these laws do is prohibit ONLY the law-abiding citizens from having a means of self protection. They ENCOURAGE mass shootings like this because the shooters know that they will have a period of time between ten minutes and five or six hours in which they can kill as many people as they desire, because no one has anything with which they can oppose the shooters.

Cheryl Panzarella

My 19 year old son and his friends have been planning for and looking forward to the midnight showing of the Dark Knight Rises since they returned home from college this spring. We live in the Boston area so they were safe last night but I can’t help but think of the people in Aurora who were probably just like my son and his friends who were at the Aurora theater last night. I am anxious to learn about all the victims and my heart and prayers go out to their loved ones and the fortunate survivors whose lives have been changed forever. You will not be forgotten and may you be nourished with comfort and strength from your community near and far.

Tbone

This many people are shot to death every weekend in
Chicago and the media basically ignores it. The freakiness of this one is what attracts all the attention.
How can it be stopped? Face it, it never will be stopped. Someone is likely planning another one right now. Hope family or friend stops them first. Or they off themselves beforehand.

God Bless the Victims

Sending our thoughts and prayers out to the victims and their families and all who were affected by this senseless rampage. I think it’s pathetic that people are taking this opportunity to forward a political position when people’s lives have been taken and others still hang in the balance. God bless the victims and their families!

jimmyB

Unfortunately, politicians of all strips will use tragedies to “forward a political position”.

sally

Banning all guns would not have stopped this. He just would have used a homemade explosive device instead. Same result. Maybe worse. No, the problem is unsocialized people, particularly men, home alone with their computer and their anger and/or mental illness. We need more ways for people to socialize and interact.

Anonymous

no, the big problem is the idiotic “gun free zone” created in the theater by a city council or the state legislature, or the federal government, which only encourages mass murderers like this shooter to commit their crimes, and prohibits ONLY the law abiding citizens from having the means with which they could protect themselves.

No, but I do. I can think of two or three that would be on my list. My question is where does an unemployed guy get the money to buy $3k to buy these, because that would help me on my next purchase if I can figure it out.

Anonymous

according to several reports, Holmes received more than 26 thousand dollars from the federal government, allegedly to further his education, but that he used instead to buy weapons and ammo.

Anonymous

glad to see that you realize that individuals in the USA have the freedom to own weapons, with which they can resist a tyrannical government.

We should have at least one firearm in every home in the country, and ammunition for it, and every responsible adult citizen should be required to know how and when to use one, unless they have a religious or moral objection to having a gun.

As Richard Henry Lee stated: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

the only delusional person is you. Do you really believe that a person who is determined to kill indiscriminately is going to be deterred from shooting people by a policy or law that prohibits anyone from having a firearm in a public place?

Such laws only encourage shooters such as Holmes, for they know that they will be unopposed for several minutes to several hours, until the police show up.

Well, since YOU brought it up, ALL Automobiles must be REGISTERED, all Drivers must be LICENSED, and both must be INSURED — so it’s clearly time for:

Mandatory Registration of ALL guns
Mandatory Licensing for ALL gun owners
Mandatory Liability Insurance for every gun and owner

HTH.

Anonymous

Not to point out the obvious, but since you missed it, due to your preconceived ideas, I did not equate guns to automobiles., but guns to alcohol. Just an FYI, since you brought it up. Owning a firearm is a right protecected by the constitution, whether it is found by one to be abhorrent or not. Driving a car is not a right, but a privilege conferred by the individual state government.

Anonymous

One thing, DH, unlike automobiles,the right of possession of one, or of driving it, is not guaranteed by any part of any constitution. The Second Amendment states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which means it cannot be reduced, lessened or destroyed. That right pre-dates the constitution, and the second amendment and does not depend in any way on the 2nd amendment for its existence.

So you support the right of the Homicically Insane, Felons, those under 21 — for handguns — and all other currently “infringed” to possess an unlimited number of firearms, eh?

Anonymous

I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, yes. I have no fear of a “homicically [sic] insane person, or a felon” who is in possession of a firearm, as long as I have one also. As far as the idiotic laws that prohibit possession of handgun ownership to persons under the age of 21, I believe our U.S. military issues handguns to 18 year olds on a regular basis. And so do police forces.

I oppose all anti-gun laws, whereever they are situated. Because none have ever prevented any crimes, and only made it easier for the criminals in this country to commit their crimes.

So you support the availability of Fully Automatic Machine Guns, Grenades and Rocket Launchers for everyone in the USA ?

As long as you can have those toys too, of course.

Anonymous

The constitution and the supreme court say I can have them. And no state laws to the contrary can keep me from getting them.

Possession of such weapons is not and should not be a crime. Using one, or threatening to use one in the commission of a felony crime should be a major felony offense. First time offender–twenty years, minimum, with no parole. Second time offender–automatic death penalty, If such a policy were uniformly carried out, there would be no three time losers.

Anonymous

jared lee loughner was under medical treatment, but under patient doctor laws, his medical record could not be made public. I would bet that the police will find that this shooter was also under medical care for depression, or some other mental disorder.

And then there are people like DonkeyHotay who need to be under a doctor’s care, but aren’t

Where in the Second Amendment that you’re so fond of does it exclude those “under medical treatment” ??

Anonymous

It doesn’t, but the unconstitutional 1968 Gun Control Act states that psychiatric patients are among those that can be prohibited from owning weapons.

In any case, such medical records cannot be obtained by police except under court order, AFTER a specific person has been arrested and charged with a violent crime in which a firearm was used. Doctors cannot be required under current law to reveal if their patients are under psychiatric care, in most states, to police on “fishing expeditions”. And that’s as it should be. Because alleging that a person is “crazy” would be a good way for unrestricted police to deny a person’s right to keep and bear arms.

So you agree, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution CAN be infringed upon, as with the GCA act of 1968, et seq.?

Of course you don’t mind infringing upon OTHER PEOPLES’ rights, so long as you can cling to yours, eh?

.

TJ

I agree, banning guns won’t stop this type of thing. If you read the Wikipedia mass murder lists, there are many methods that have been used for centuries, including bows, cross-bows, grenades or other explosives, flamethrowers, knives, swords, spears, machetes, axes, clubs, stones, poison, arson, vehicles, drowning, and bare hands. Instead, we must address the mental illness that underlies these events. Unfortunately, because mental illness is so common, we can never really be safe.

Anonymous

Several have pointed out that Patrick Purdy, the 1975 Stockton California shooter, the 1976 Louisville, KY printing plant shooter, several of the school shooters between 1976 and 1990, the two Columbine High School shooters, and several others of these perpetrators were under, or had been under, treatment with Prozac or other similar anti-depressant drugs, and either weren’t taking the drug on their own, or had quit taking the drug on doctor’s orders. But the medical community still demands the right to prescribe these drugs, though I notice that most of the advertising for them has changed to state that children and young adults should not take the drugs, or be exposed to them, because they “may trigger homicidal rage or suicidal depression” in young adults and teens.

alegator99

Right now I’m more concerned with Westboro Baptist showing up for the funerals. It’s their style and you know they’re probably going to. They’re attention hogs just like the shooter!

SoCalRdr

I’m left wondering WHY an “average” Joe can buy an assault weapon……AND, WHY, one person is able to purchase FOUR weapons in 60 days!!

Seems to me that there has to be SOME WAY of cross-checking such individuals on a national data base!

Saxxon

This guy apparently had no record they’ve found yet. CBS was quick to finger the Tea Party, but my money is on an Occupy type given he’s a college student (predominatly liberal) and couldn’t find a job. Bet he’s a Democrat, he apparently just a couple months ago decided to get some guns & ammo – they might want to look around some Occupy related sites and see what might have set him on this path back then. Just a couple searches put me on a site called DailyKOS where I saw some fairly disturbing posts about violence guns etc from this supposedly “peaceful 99%” and a sub-faction referred to as “black bloc”. Makes me glad I am a 1%er…

BTW, Laughner from the Arizona shooting turned out to be a Democratic Party operative, volunteering for Obama’s ’08 campaign and was reading Karl Marx. Not a Tea Party type as the press first tried to paint him. Methinks theres a pattern here.

Anonymous

It was not an assault weapon. It was a semi-automatic rifle. So an average joe, must obtain a federal license to possess an assault weapon and therefore the are registered.

Anonymous

Very true. And to get that license, he/she must pass an FBI background check, have his/her fingerprints and an identifiable mug shot taken, and then must get a letter from the “chief law-enforcement officer” of the area attesting to one’s good character. Then, the prospective legal owner has to pay a $200 transfer tax on each “weapon” he/she wishes to purchase. For some things, like large caliber (15 mm-75 mm and greater) ammunition, each cartridge is classified as a weapon, and the owner has to pay the cost of the live ammo, plus a $200 transfer tax. Some people call the license itself a “Class III” license, others a “class C” license.

Anonymous

First the weapons this guy used were not “assault weapons”. That’s a myth perpetrated by the anti gun news media.

Second, as to why one person can buy four (or 10 or fifty) guns in 60 days, that’s because of a Constitutional amendment, the 2nd, which guarantees that the right of citizens to own “arms” and carry them shall not be infringed–that means reduced or limited. There’s no reason to limit the number of guns anyone can buy.

Third, such a database is prohibited under the Firearms Owners Protection Act, because the only purpose of such a database would be to confiscate firearms, in violation of the 2nd amendment.

Saxxon

I used to go to that theatre, and I used to carry my CCW back then 8 years ago because that area is (or at least was then) a gang harbor (was a gang shooting at that mall not all that long ago). One person with a firearm could have mitigated or even stopped the slaughter. Liberals with no clue speculate one would “freeze up” or shoot wildly, or “30 vigilantes would open up” – all utter nonsense. Obviously no one did, so the issue of numerous people shooting is moot. We needed one. The shooter was armored yes, but to such a degree he was encumbered and aside from not being affected by his own gas, limited in vision and mobility by the mask, helmet, vest and leggings. With the chaos of people trying to get to exits, a single person would have little difficulty ambushing him as he shot at random targets, every row of seats offers concealment. The theatre was dark, but its not pitch black – witnesses could see he had the mask on. Just hitting him a few times, body slamming into him as he recovered his balance and point blank shooting him in the head/neck would have ended the encounter. But that would have taken an armed citizen. The theatre has a “no guns” policy that it seems all the law abiding citizens heeded – to their peril. I was at another theatre that night, I had my sidearm on me in open carry. I was approached by the police as I left and they checked my ID etc. They said I’d understand when I saw the news from Aurora why they were taking precautions. They weren’t against myself or other armed citizens carrying and once they’d verified I wasn’t part of a possible multi-person action I was on my way. But what I didn’t do was panic, or disrespect them – I could see as we exited the theatre someething was up, the police were arranged in siege formation and behind their car doors, some with M4 carbines. If I had reacted badly I could have been shot, but I know that showing calm and complying with their instructions would make their job easier and not jeopardize my life. That is rational thinking under stress (if you don’t think its stressful having a half a dozen officers with guns drawn focused on you, you need to reduce your Prozac). I don’t expect a liberal to understand it, but if I had been in that theatre where the gunman was with my weapon, he’d have been stopped. I might have taken hits & died as well, but I wouldn’t have just fled the scene or hid in a corner. Just not my moral makeup, and fear is the just the first step in a combat reaction as the adrenalin kicks in. You get scared, but you acta. Liberals don’t underrstand, but vets do.

John

The attention of how many and what type of guns were used is moot. Each person screaming for more kgun control should be screaming for other solutions than t he tried and failed gun control policies.

The theatre was/is a no gun zone. All that means is that it’s easier for illintentioned people to act out because t hey know that people are not allowed to bring their concealed carry guns with them.

It’s also silly to demand metal detectors at these places….wha would it have done to. Stop the shooting…nothing.

All of these normal knee jerk reactions demanding gun control are off, wrong and plainly stupid. The real problem wasserstein the shooters state of mind.

If anything,, maybe it’s time we placed ‘reasonable restrictions on speech’. We need to start to ban Batman movies for starters because of the amount of violence it portrays.

Then we should ban Islam because all Islam does is preach hate under the ospiciouses of religion.

The gun control method has proven not to work, so let’s try something new…ban speech” after all, something in the media gave this guy the idea.

Anonymous

An Italian author, Cesare Beccaria, in his 1809 “Essays on Crime and Punishment”, as quoted (English Translation) by Thomas Jefferson in his “Legal Commonplace Book” stated: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted, and better for the assailants; the serve rather to ENCOURAGE [emphasis added] than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”

The old adage that “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is shown to be more and more truthful every day, and with every incident such as this.

Happy Jack

Why is there a dead six year old here? Why was an infant injured?
I asked my wife. And she said that they probably did not have the money for a baby sitter. Later on a news channel they say the same thing.
Are parents today so wrapped up in what they want that they feel it is okay to drag kids and infants to a movie theater at midnight? Are they so self absorbed that their needs trump all other needs including those of their children?
You go to a movie that in 6 months to a year will be out on dvd’s anyway. In 2 years you will be able to watch it on a saturday afternoon for nothing.I stopped going to movies years ago and am not sure of the cost but I am fairly certain that if you cannot afford a baby sitter, paying that much for a movie is straining the family budget.
I feel so bad for the children in the theater that night and I hope they are able to get over the trauma.

Patriot Smith

NY Mayor Bloomberg is calling for gun
control while Gov. John Hickenlooper calls this an “act of
depravity”. Are you kidding
me! These killing were by a Colorado
University PHD candidate; a kid who had achieved a higher level of education
than both the governor and the mayor. If
anything is morally corrupt as Hickenlooper calls it, it’s liberal universities
that spawn James Holmes types. If
Hickenlooper wants to talk about depravity he should include the root cause of
moral decline in our country today consisting of a liberal media, liberal welfare
state, liberal court system, a manipulative White House, and a dumbed down
Democratic Party.

Bloomberg just doesn’t want to waste an
opportunity for reviving an old party line.
The outcome could have been different had one person in the theater had
a gun; even if only used as a distraction against the shooter with a bullet
proof vest. If guns are made illegal
only outlaws will have guns. But gun
control isn’t about a scenario in public and how the outcome could have been
different; it’s about our rights as citizens to be armed under any condition. In hindsight, how many people with guns if
asked would have left them at the door?
Not me, and a couple guys like me could have made a difference just like
airplane incidents where passengers are the ones who save the day.

This is just the beginning of this media
blitz and how this Batman shooting incident will be played out as a tool of the
left, for example, early television coverage by Brian Ross, ABC news reporting James
Holmes as a member of the “Tea Party”; and don’t forget the skewed early
reporting about Trayvon Martin. These
are just recent reminders about left wing agenda’s and how the news on the left
reports. An empty can, not an empty gun,
makes the most noise.

SittingMooseShaman

…blah, blah and blah-h…whine, whine and whimper…cry-anuses…what!?! you all think you’re going to live forever!?! …not with cos-playing, mad-scientist, left-wingnut PhD-students like this guy runnin’ about you ain’t…you ain’t ennyways…no one does…at least, not in this dimension…
Once you ha, hah…”take all the guns away”…then it’ll be the cops(pigs) and military who will be the ones killing you idiots…they’re doin’ it NOW…’U-Toob’ is full of cwazzy cops plasterin’ cripples…”psychos” come “to power” also! Just think: An American “Hitler”(screw Godwin, he’s things to hide!)…ol’ Adolf was a painter…an artist…we call ’em today; “landscape/architectural” painter…a liberal…progressive thinker…that sphincter dean of admissions at the Vienna school of art is to blame for WW2 really…Stalin? …he was a reporter for Pravda…libs are vicious when ‘leadership’ is theirs…Idiots.

SittingMooseShaman

P.S. just think of how many mad-scientists like this yahoo are ALREADY in government power right this moment…just waiting…for the chance…to strike…’they’ are ALREADY in their ‘cos-play’ cloths…and their minds are…!?!…

Anonymous

”
God
forbid that we question even a single tenet of the theology of firearms.
” From EJ DionneThe comic by David Fitzsimons on pg 29A says it all. This is just becoming a cycle in this nation, that we are slowly getting used to, because we accept the consequences of our decisons regarding assault weapons, large capacity clips, and easy access to purchase – even online. (see: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21124477/worst-shootings-u-s) The media are in their element now, not the investigative journalistic of old, but the marketing of emotion, fear, and sensititivity. We’ll play the blame game, the gun advocates will claim if someone in the audience was armed this might have been prevented. I guess the shooter realized this and why he wore body armor, and apparently he wanted to live, because he found a place to stop the carnage before someone did something heroic. It’s safe to say Romney won’t take on the issue of assault weapons, large capacity magazines, rampant online sales, or the lack of tracking massive purchases like this by one person; and sadly because it’s an election year, neither will Obama. Who has the courage to stand up to the NRA-types? There is only one. . . . “we the people.”

Anonymous

toohip, the fact remains that laws, like the one in place in Aurora and most of Colorado, where ONLY law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying in public places like malls, theaters, and schools, ENCOURAGE the murders of innocent people by people like this shooter. A person who is determined to kill as many people as possible is not going to be deterred by any imaginary line drawn by a city council, or a state or federal legislature around a public place saying “you can’t legally have a firearm in this location”.

The weapons used by this shooter are not “assault weapons”. That is a lie created by the anti-gun liars in the press. The weapons he used were legal, semiautomatic firearms that “look like” military weapons. As such, they are legal to own, and should remain legal to own.

BTW, toohip, the only things one can buy legally “online” related to guns are ammunition, bullets, primers, empty cartridges, cleaning gear, and accessories like sights and slings. The weapons cannot legally be bought or sold through the internet, except by setting up a face-to-face meeting between a legal seller and a legal buyer.

m edwards

too many people in the world, and a large number of them are toxic, we need to bred less, and take care of more

Beth Johnson

After reading the Denver Post this morning, and listening to what people have been saying in regards to the tragic shooting yesterday in Aurora, I felt compelled to express my genuine disgust towards the individuals who are using this unspeakable act of horror as a platform to throw in their political and religious views. This is not the time nor the place to give us your anti-Obama, anti-Romney, anti-abortion, anti-whatever B.S. Show some respect to the families and people who woke up this morning without a brother, sister, mother, father, child… Keep your personal agenda to yourself.

Anonymous

okay, when you quit making unfounded charges that the NRA or law-abiding gun owners in general are “responsible for this shooting” and quit demanding that gun owners give up their freedom.

hawki

The Denver Post reporter, Charles Minshew, listed mass shootings in the U.S. He left out the Binghampton N.Y. shooting.

Our prayers go out ot the victims and families that suffered in this tragedy. And our supreme thanks go out to the police and fire personnel that responded in such brave fashion. The best way to honor those we’ve lost and the courageous people that responded is to make changes to minimize the chances of this happening again. Truly, if we don’t do something about how easy it is for deranged people to get guns, then we’re all complicit. It’s absolutely absurd that it’s easier to get an automatic weapon in Colorado than it is to get a drivers license. There’s no reason for anyone except law enforcement and the military to own automatic weapons. These weapons have no reason to exist except to harm people and it’s time we finally make a reasonable decision to make it difficult for people to obtain them. We make hand grenades and C4 explosive illegal to obtain; why would we allow automatic weapons? The writers of the Constitution made it such that people could have a reasonable means of defending themselves but they did not foresee what’s possible with today’s weaponry. The people who argue that one armed person in the theater could have stopped this thing are well-intended but wrong: another shooter in the auditorium would have increased the level of panic, would have increased the chances for cross-fire and likely wouldn’t have been able to end the shooting since the assassin was wearing ballistic protection. This is the third random shooting Colorado’s endured since 1999 and I believe we’d be safer if there were reasonable restrictions on weapons capable of mass murder.

Anonymous

obviously you know nothing about firearms. One can have all the “gun control” laws in place one wants, and criminals will still get them. So the best thing to do is to make it as easy as possible for everyone to have the same access to firearms. That way the criminals (including the criminals in government) won’t have the only guns in town.

What source do you have for your statement that it’s easier to get an automatic weapon in Colorado than it is to get a driver’s license? That’s a falsehood. One has to have a driver’s license before he/she can buy any kind of gun from a licensed dealer. Most licensed dealers are not licensed to sell or possess fully-automatic weapons or any kind of “destructive devices”. Those who are are required by law to sell only to other holders of licenses permitting them to own such weapons.

BTW, there’s plenty of reasons for people other than law-enforcement and the military to have automatic weapons. It’s called the 2nd amendment, which guarantees that the people have the right to have the same kinds of weapons issued to military and law-enforcement personnel, so that neither can have a monopoly of force. Otherwise you’re asking for a Gestapo like police state in this country.

BTW, there was a mass shooting in a church somewhere in Colorado that was stopped by a CHL holder who was serving as a part time security guard for the church in the last year or so.

The big problem is the idiotic “gun free zone” laws passed by the state legislature and local town councils that prohibit ONLY law-abiding citizens from having firearms in “public gathering places”.. Shooters like this most recent one know that they can go to a mall, theater, school or other gun free zone and shoot as many people as they please, and no one can stop them.

Anonymous

“In the old West, the towns remained lawless until the sheriffs made everyone check their guns at the city limits.”
=============
There was more than one way to enter a town in the miss-named “Wild” West…..so all the Law-Abiding Citizens who checked their weapons were easy targets of any and all Outlaws who entered town through a back door, a side street, or anywhere else the “sheriiff” wasn’t.
==========
And besides, any Gang of Outlaws who wanted a whole batch of guns to steal could find an ample supply at the town entrance….with what (?) one lone town sheriff?
==========
The fact is, as the Denver Post reported in today’s paper, the “worst massacres in U.S. history” all occurred after 1973….with one exception in 1966.
==========
In other words, the “Wild” West wasn’t as “Wild” as Hollywood and Liberals claim……at least it wasn’t as “Wild” as the U.S. was and is in the past 50 years.

Anonymous

actually, the only people really affected by the “gun bans” of the 1880s in Dodge City and Tombstone were the “cowboys” (gangs) who rode into town to have a good time. The law-abiding citizens were not affected by the laws, because they only applied to the “red light district” where the saloons and prostitution parlors were located.

Anonymous

Pretty true. There was a reason that holsters had their owner’s name on them.
There is a mythology about the “wild west” that has evolved over the last century that isn’t, historically, entirely true. Did gunfights happen? Yes. We’re they as common as we would like to believe they occurred? No.

Anonymous

Hollywood makes a a living selling video instruction manuals on how to murder. These
video instruction manuals show attractive successful people killing people. These manuals come in multiple sizes. Some come in the 42 minute variety so that they can be shown on TV. Other longer manuals have to shown in a theater or downloaded. Some show how to kill lots of people at once, others concentrate on killing individuals.

From Hollywood I have learned how to kill people using a variety of different kinds of guns, knives and other hand and power tools. I’ve learned how to do it with household cleaners, deodorant, fertilizer, and medical supplies.

By the time a child finishes elementary school he has seen 8,000 murders. In this case, as in many others, we see people who have re-enacted murder which they saw on the screen. At some point we need to hold Hollywood responsible for inciting violence.

lorilwayne

We can all state opinions of what we think would stop this from reoccurring and I too have an opinion. However regardless of our opinions this won’t bring back those that have been lost not only in Colorado but across the nation from situations similar to this. My thoughts go out to your metropolitan community, the responders and their families as they work through their emotions. I’m sorry for your losses.

Commonsense2010

It is a senseless tragedy committed by a deranged mind. However talk of taking away liberty from law abiding citizens is not the answer. That is akin to a teacher punishing the class for the actions of one. Gun ownership is a right and responsibility however. Those who break laws will be will us as part of a free society.

JLew

May God be as fair to James Homes as James Holmes was fair to the victims. He stole from everyone

NewsFlash — this shooter, like Jared Lee Laughner in Tucson, were “Law Abiding Gun Owners” … right up to the moment they pulled the trigger.

.

Anonymous

true, but the fact remains, that they DID pull the triggers, and most gun owners don’t. Because they continue to obey the law, unlike criminals like Loughner and Holmes.

Do you really believe that a person like Loughner, or Holmes, or Cho (Virginia Tech), or the Columbine High School killers, once they made up their minds to kill other people (which is against the law) indiscriminately, would be deterred by the presence of a minor infraction law that prohibited them from carrying a firearm in a public place, or a store policy that prohibited them from having a firearm? That’s really logical (NOT)!

bptr

Tell me how a person with a gun in the theater would have stopped this. Would they carry a gun ready at all movies then just shoot in the dark – or in this case tear gas and dark – when they hear a loud noise and just hope that they don’t hit another innocent person? This is ludicrous!
All you gun owners are lulled into a false sense of security which is only fueled by machoism. The reality is that a gun does nothing to stop you from being shot. Your neighbor can pick you off from his roof anytime you walk out of your house – whether you have a gun or not.
We are calling for gun CONTROL!!! If several laws were broken for this killer to get his weapons, then I guess we aren’t CONTROLLING it or we??? DUH
Should people be able to buy hand grenades and rocket launchers and nuclear weapons at Walmart? Of course not. Therefore we already have limits. We obviously need to take those limits lower. Every police chief in the country has been pleading for bans for decades. Our corrupt Congress does nothing. And our brainwashed moronic public just goes along with it.
The numbers don’t lie. This country has something like 300 millions guns and has far far far far far far more deaths from guns than other countries with far fewer guns. The more guns, the more deaths from guns. It is really simple.
Can Americans really be THAT stupid so they don’t understand this???

Anonymous

(1) NO one claims that having a firearm in one’s possession at all times “keeps one from being shot”, except the deluded anti-gunners like yourself, bp.
(2) All that “pro gun rights” supporters are claiming is that NO ONE WAS LEGALLY ABLE TO CARRY THEIR SELF-DEFENSE WEAPONS IN THE THEATER THAT NIGHT. That ENCOURAGED Holmes (the shooter) to commit his murders, as such false laws and policies always do.
(3) The theater owner prohibited ALL LAW-ABIDING citizens from having a means of self-defense on their person. That’s the ONLY effect the theater’s policy prohibiting firearms in the theater has, as it always does.
(4) The Supreme Court has held (1939’s U.S. V. Miller case) that the ownership/possession of weapons that are of some use in the maintenance of a well-regulated militia is specifically protected by the language of the second amendment.
(5) Your statement that we need to limit the rights of citizens even more is quite false. The only sensible thing to do is to repeal every gun law, and store policy that prohibits ONLY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS from having firearms in their possession.
(6) “Every police chief in the country has been calling for this for decades” but the rank and file policemen know that they cannot be everywhere, all the time, and that individuals carrying their legally owned firearms can be. In any case, the police are not legally required to provide police protection to any individual, just to t he public as a whole.
(7) Anti-gunners do lie, however, in support of their agenda to disarm and enslave the people of the US.
(8) Anyone who calls another a “moron”, or “stupid”, because he/she disagrees with them politically undermines anything and everything he/she states.

Anonymous

honor them even more by opposing any renewal or passage of any new gun bans. None of them do any good. ANd all only encourage shooters like Holmes, Cho, Loughner and the Columbine shooters, because they know that no one will have the weapons with which they can stop them.

The FBI concluded in 2006 that the unconstitutional 1994 “Assault weapons” ban had no effect on crimes nationwide.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.